Whether a plaintiff must anticipate and preemptively rebut every possible inference favoring the defendant, even if implausible, to survive summary judgment

QUESTION PRESENTED ‘ Petitioner Cleveland Franklin was trapped in a : residential elevator with no telephone. Using his fists, he saved his life by pounding his way out to freedom, and in the process suffered personal injury. He sued ; for damages against Respondent American Elevators . Inspections, Inc, who had certified the elevator as safe. : . In addition to his own sworn testimony, Mr. Franklin . submitted the affidavit of a telephone engineer that . the elevator never had a telephone installed because there was no wiring for a telephone, and no cut-out in the wall to house a telephone. A 2-1 majority of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the Respondents on two grounds. : First, that Mr. Franklin’s affidavit that he never saw a phone in the elevator was not specific to the date of the elevator inspection. Second, that the lack of wiring : ‘ or cutout observed by the telephone engineer did not exclude the possibility of a phone sitting on the floor of the elevator and that no witness attested that “telephone wires can only enter an elevator cab through a wall.” A dissenting opinion rightly asks, “how could a : phone line come through the walls of the elevator without a cut out of some sort?” Accordingly, the Question Presented is whether : to survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff . ' must anticipate and preemptively rebut every possible : interference favoring the defendant, no matter how implausible.